The division Bench of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice P. S. Narasimha of the Apex court in the case of Jabir & Ors Vs The State of Uttarakhand held that conviction cannot be done solely based on the last seen theory.
It was further observed that a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond a reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances. Such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the Accused and no one else.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case was that Haseen, a 7-year-old boy went missing in 1999. Two days later his dead body was found in a sugarcane field. As per the post-mortem report, his death had occurred 2 days before the post-mortem examination. During the course of the investigation, the Accused-Appellants were arrested.
The Trial Court convicted the Appellants under Sections 302, 364, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was contended that there is no explanation for a five weeks delay in lodging the FIR. Furthermore, there are discrepancies in the testimony of various witnesses. It was submitted that the "last seen" theory appears to be an afterthought and fabrication given that almost all testimonies were of the close relatives of the deceased child. It was also submitted that there was a motive behind cooking a false story against the Appellants as there was animosity between the Appellants’ family and the family members of the deceased child.
It was argued that a complete chain of events has to be proved by the Prosecution so that the likelihood of innocence of the Accused is ruled out. There is a long distance between “may be true” and “must be true” and hence, on basis of suspicion, a conviction cannot be done.
Contentions of the State:
It was contended that all the eyewitnesses clearly stated that they had seen the deceased boy in the company of the Appellants. Hence, the last-seen theory was correctly applied.
Observations of the Court:
It was noted that the conviction was done solely based on the testimonies of two sets of witnesses. Further, the Court found it unnatural that the police statement of a material witness was recorded after 2 months from the start of the investigation.
It was opined by the Apex Court that a basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond a reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances. Such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the Accused and no one else. The circumstantial evidence, to sustain a conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the Accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
It was noted that there was no evidence, oral or any material object, which connected the Appellant-Accused with the crime. It was expounded that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of the murder, is narrow. Further, the Court should not convict an Accused only based on the “last seen” circumstance.
The decision of the Court:
It was held that the conviction and sentence of the Appellant-Accused could not be sustained. The impugned judgment was set aside and the Appellants were released. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
Case Title: Jabir & Ors Vs The State of Uttarakhand
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2013
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 38 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Advocate for Appellant: Adv. Vikrant Singh Bais
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Sudarshan Singh Rawat
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :